From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264536AbTFEJAc (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:00:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264537AbTFEJAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:00:31 -0400 Received: from deviant.impure.org.uk ([195.82.120.238]:50823 "EHLO deviant.impure.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264536AbTFEJA2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:00:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:18:02 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] PCI and PCI Hotplug changes and fixes for 2.5.70 Message-ID: <20030605091802.GA17356@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20030605013147.GA9804@kroah.com> <20030605021452.GA15711@kroah.com> <20030605083815.GA16879@suse.de> <20030605084933.GI2329@kroah.com> <20030605085938.GC16879@suse.de> <20030605090645.GA2887@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030605090645.GA2887@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 02:06:45AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > so why not.. > > > > #define pci_for_each_dev(dev) \ > > while ((device = pci_find_device(PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, device)) != NULL) > > > > ? > > > > Seems to be the same change you made tree-wide, with minimal > > interruption to drivers. > > But that would have changed the way that pci_for_each_dev() works. > It would require that dev=NULL before the function is called. trivial to fix. > And having > the same function work subtly different on different kernel versions > would not be the best thing. ditto. > Getting rid of it entirely was the better > option, and now that Linus has pulled it, we don't have to worry about > it anymore :) The fact that a tree-wide 'cleanup' like this goes in just a few hours after its posted before chance to comment is another argument, but concentrating on the technical point here, I still think this is a step backwards. Dave